Proabably been put up before but here it is again ... Kitti suggested, on the tournament board, that when a Tournament Section is absolutely decided that the tournament creator could be able to "declare" that section so that the competition can move on ... good idea Kitti :)

That could even be automated. I guess BK server will beat most of the tournament creators in maths :)

If something like this was added, I think it SHOULD be automated. It would be a shame to be the person who loses out, just because the creator didn't figure it out right. Yes, many times it is obvious, but in the closer tournaments when the S-B is used, I can see the potential of not every creator understanding it..

I would like to re-request that when there is a tie in a final round, that the tied participants play it out until there is a single winner..

It will be.

A man of many words! :-)
What will be what?
:-P

Que Sera ... Sera

It will be automated :-)

Can it be arranged so that internal fellowship tournaments of fellowships of which we are members appear on the normal tournament page?

Yes. Tournaments page will be rearranged anyway.

it would be nice if 2.0 was sort of "editable," so you could make changes as you go, as suggestions are made, rather than having to save them all up for a future version. not that we'd want bk to be in a state of constant change, either - that would be disorienting - but it would be nice if you had the option to think of something or receive a suggestion, think, "hey, that's a great idea," and just do it.

:)

plaintiger: It is possible only for changes which don't require any change in the application code. For example, if you want to modify some text label or board description, etc.

Moreover, such online changes are possible only after BK becomes my [and Liquid's] full-time job. A day doesn't have more than 24 hours.

It only has 24 hours? Wow I knew there was something wrong. You are going to fix that too right? LOL

I would like to see the option to make some (not all) tournaments 'equal matching' .. such as within a range of perhaps 200 BKR. Of course, this would never do for those who only want to increase their BKR, and I would not want to play all games with equals myself. I enjoy playing with those who can whump my butt <g> because that's how you improve. I learned to shoot pool from two excellent players and one superb hustler ('traveling insurance salesman' my arse, Clarence.. if you're listening! ;) so I know well the value of playing advanced players. But now and then it's nice just to play someone at roughly your level just for fun. :)

Just made the last the move in a tournament which Fencer won. Now, I think it would be nice to stroke his ego if he were to receive a message in his in-box saying that "such-and-such-a-tournament" had finished and he was the winner. This could even be extended to all participants to let them know the tournament was complete and how they did ... could even be an automated link to the standing table ... what do you think winner (congrats :)

Whisperz: It will be implemented. Due to performance issues, all tournaments will be checked once a hour outside BrainKing application [maybe even from a different server]. As a part of the automatic tournament start script.
Lythande: Maybe I missed your point but what about to define a tournament with BKR boundaries? 1800-2000, for example.

Great idea WhisperzQ... there have been lots of times I have been curious who ended up winning a tournament I was in, but didnn't want to wade through all the "completed tournaments" to find it.
There have also been times I didn't even realize I had won a tournament!(because I finished early and hadn't checked back on the tournament.)

yeah, see, Fencer, i'm actually aware that a day doesn't have more than 24 hours in it (i know because i overheard some people talking about it in a cafe recently). my thought was that if you could make a change to the site here and there rather than having to overhaul the whole thing at once, you might actually be able to accomplish *more* in *less* time. i thought my suggestion might - just *might* - even be *helpful*. but between the defensiveness with which you meet my suggestions (and even my compliments) and the continuous tiresome drone of "there's no time! there's no time! thank you for your money, but the site you're paying for is on the bottom of my priority list!" i think it's not in my best interest to care any more. so just forget about my suggestions, and i will too.

Talk about defensive!

Fencer: We can do that, yes, but what about those outside that range? That would be a lot of extra tournaments, and the more there are, the less chance enough people will join, and a lot of extra db space if a tournament were started for ever 200 BKR range. What I meant, was a tournament where anyone could join, but when the sections were set up (with this option checked) each section would include players within a set range of each other.

I've no doubt it would be tons of new code, because I haven't seen anything here like it (afaik).

plaintiger: There is no reason to be insulted because I don't respond to all your suggestions. I regularry write down all good suggestions to my TODO list and when BK is ready for more changes, most of them will be done. However, as I already told many times, the current top priority task is a refactoring of BrainKing application code. Everything else depends on it and nothing else can be done before this job is done. Stability and good performance is always more important than new features because it affects all users.

Lythande: It would not be impossible to do it in your way but what happens when less than 3 signed players make a group of similar BKRs? A section must be formed of 3 or more players. Should be such players moved to a section with higher average BKR or removed from the tournament at all?

Fencer: In that case I'd suggest moving those players to the section with the nearest range to theirs. Either that, or leave it for the director to decide (mayhaps with a notice when they close signups: "So and so(s) have not enough for a section, what should I do?"). Might be an idea to leave it for the creator also to decide whether to move them to a range higher or lower than their BKR, too.

PS I thought it was 4 or more players?

Lythande: 4 is the least number of total players of a tournament.

I assume that means for each game within the tournament?

Yes.

Anotehr option would be to rank order on BKR and the first 4 go in the first section, secondin second and so on. May end up more tahn 200BKR or less, but atleast they would be the closest matches. Sort of anti-seeding!

I guess there could be three options (sorry Fencer more work for you) when the tournament director starts a tournment to have "seeding" (a la tennis etc), anti-seeding (as just described) or random ... go to it my man (when you have time :)

Random seeding was the first implementation, more than a year ago [it means that it would be very easy to add it again]. The default "sorted by BKR and similar average BKR in all sections" approach has been implemented on GothicInventor's request [very good idea, I must say, originally from Caissus] and is currently used for all tournaments. And it's not hard to plug in more algorithms.
So, it seems to be a new option on Define Tournament page, eh? :-)

Just more work for you ... that's all ... but to quote the master "Stability and good performance is always more important than new features" ... so this can wait (so far as I am concerned) for BK2.01 :)

Could we please have another option in the "move" area which was "move and close window". I find, when I have a number of games with a shortish period to go that I keep one browser open and sequentially "open in new window" the games in order (or near order). This would stop me having to open the new window; make the move; go back to the main page; close the browser window; move on to the next. If others do this too it might save a little database search time too :)

<Whispers: I think that would be an -excellent- idea (ranking BKRs).

Fencer: Options are good -- from a user's standpoint, at least. :> (And iirc, they were fun to code, if a pita at times. ;) Though I agree fully with Whispers about it not being 'priority'.

Whispers (on the windows bit): I use mozilla's tabbed browsing, and just keep two tabs going for BK along with my others.

In unrated tournaments how about not displaying any ratings?

<Hmmm.. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to tell at the outset if I'm likely to get my arse tromped. :> Can I ask, why you think it should be hidden, just out of curiosity?

Because it has no relevence but effects attitudes. If you want to know your opponents rating you can visit their profile.

Hmm.. this is true.. hide away. :)

Could we get a "delete messages" button at the top of the messages page as it's likely to be new messages (finished games) that we want to delete.

Yes.

I think someone may have asked this before but how about showing a player's highest personal rating in each particular game, a sort of 'personal best'. It could be shown on the profile page.
It would be neat to have a reminder of what you have achieved and what to aim for.

It's not impossible but since the BKR history is not stored, it would require a re-generation of all BKRs based on all finished games.
Advantage: BKRs would be correct at last [because due to database overhead, in some cases BKR was not recalculated after finishing a game].
Disadvantage: Some players could be disappointed that their real BKRs are lower than current values.

You mean I'll have to continue to write my ratings down on a piece of paper??? :o)

<Yes :-) But not forever. It's a simple sequence of dependencies: more time -> BK 2.0 -> more time -> BKR recalculation -> test -> compare -> release -> get stoned from disappointed users -> reincarnation -> DONE!

:-D

Man, this version 2.0 sticks! What have you been spending your time on Fencer, couldn't you have done better then THIS?????

--- sorry, just getting ready! :-)

(let me know if you need help testing anything - I'm great at finding "bugs") :-)

<BBW: The bugs I usually end up finding are the ones that don't affect a single other machine in the world. :>

*starts gathering stones*
Oh, to throw at others when they try to stone Fencer of course hehehehehe

*Steve gets out paper* To protect Fencer
Paper covers stones ;oÞ

So what do I do with these scissors?

Do you really want me to tell you? LOL

I nearly said that, but thought Id get accused of a personal attack LMAO

STEVE R - HOW DARE YOU EVEN THINK THAT!

Carid - Ahh... cute!

:-)